Colvin v. AHP Realty LLC
2:20-cv-00343
| D. Nev. | Sep 11, 2020Background
- Parnell Colvin (pro se) filed a motion asking defense counsel to produce documents (Docket No. 30); the Court treated this as a motion to compel.
- Defendant Qingwen Kong opposed; Court considered motion, response, and plaintiff’s reply and found no hearing necessary.
- Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s proposed discovery plan despite two Court orders; the Court previously granted in part Defendant’s plan in which the parties had agreed no discovery was necessary.
- Colvin’s motion did not include a certification or explanation showing a good-faith meet-and-confer effort as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and this District’s Local Rules (LR IA 1-3(f), LR 26-6(c)).
- The Court emphasized that pro se pleadings are construed liberally but pro se litigants remain bound by procedural rules and denied the motion to compel. Colvin’s separate motion for miscellaneous relief (Docket No. 32) was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colvin complied with the mandatory meet-and-confer/local certification requirements before moving to compel discovery | Colvin filed a motion to compel production without detailing any meet-and-confer efforts | Kong argued Colvin failed to engage in the required good-faith, two-way meet-and-confer and did not file the required certification | Court held Colvin failed to meet the meet-and-confer and certification requirements and denied the motion to compel |
| Whether discovery should be compelled where parties previously agreed no discovery was required | Colvin sought leave to compel defendant’s attorney to produce certain documents | Kong pointed to the parties’ discussions and the previously filed discovery plan agreeing no discovery was necessary | Court relied on the prior exchange and lack of justification from Colvin and denied the motion |
| Whether pro se status excuses compliance with procedural discovery rules | Colvin implicitly relied on pro se status | Kong argued procedural rules still bind pro se litigants | Court noted pleadings are liberally construed but reaffirmed pro se litigants are bound by procedural rules and refused to excuse noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings are to be liberally construed)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196 (E.D. Tenn. 1986) (discovery should proceed with minimal court involvement)
- In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (judicial intervention should be sought only in extraordinary situations)
- ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166 (D. Nev. 1996) (movant must personally engage in two-way communication and certify specifics of the meet-and-confer)
- Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118 (D. Nev. 1993) (meet-and-confer must be substantive, not formalistic)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se litigants are bound by procedural rules)
- King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with court rules)
- Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Nev. 2015) (court may examine sufficiency of meet-and-confer beyond the certification)